声音上大概旗鼓相当吧。


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛

送交者: whoami 于 2015-10-25, 15:32:57:

回答: 你这个文献是正常的讨论,和方舟子不在一个层面上。 由 OldMountains3 于 2015-10-25, 14:45:46:

传统法主要是一些非政府组织在推,主流医学界似乎没什么争论。
这有点像准基因问题,debate 比青蒿hot多了,并不代表转基因
科学上有什么争议。

who不会去评价某个具体工作。

德国组的工作十年来好像没有实质的进展或支持他们claim的工作。

这里有一篇老鼠实验的,可以说是不支持德国人的:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014489409001003

引用:
Abstract
The efficacy of artemisinin (AR) against malaria has prompted its use as a tea drink in endemic communities. However, there is controversy about its efficacy in this form. Therefore we have investigated the effectiveness of Artemisia annua infusion in infected mice.

OF1 mice infected with Plasmodium chabaudi chabaudi were treated for upto 6 days by administration of: water (control group), A. annua infusion (tea group), 0.022 mg AR (AR-equiv. group) and 0.8 mg AR on the first day and 0.4 mg the following day (AR-WHO group).

Initially, the parasitaemia increased in all groups. On day 4 it reached 75% in the control group, 72% in the AR-equiv. group, 50% in the tea group and 3% in the AR-WHO group. Mice treated with A. annua tea died after 11 days, while 83% of AR-WHO dose survived.

The tea does not decrease the parasitaemia fast enough. We suggest that large clinical trials on human subjects are necessary to ascertain the efficacy of standardized tea. Additionally, other treatment possibilities are suggested





所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码: 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容: (BBCode使用说明